Roberts v. Durham Cnty. Hosp. Corp., 298 S.E.2d 384 (N.C. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Roberts v. Durham Cnty. Hosp. Corp., 298 S.E.2d 384 (N.C. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it is fundamental that a person seeking to raise the question as to the validity of an allegedly discriminatory statute has no standing for that purpose unless he belongs to the class allegedly prejudiced by the statute.”
20 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re the Appeal of Barbour (ncctapp, 1993-11-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) In Re the Appeal of Barbour
N.C. Ct. App. · 1993 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
it is fundamental that a person seeking to raise the question as to the validity of an allegedly discriminatory statute has no standing for that purpose unless he belongs to the class allegedly prejudiced by the statute.
discussed Cited "see" Anderson v. Assimos
N.C. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Durham County Hospital Corp., 56 N.C.App. 533 , 289 S.E.2d 875 (1982), aff'd, 307 N.C. 465 , 298 S.E.2d 384 (1983) (upholding the constitutionality of the statute of repose (N.C.G.S. § 1-15(c)) for a medical malpractice action based upon the leaving of a foreign object in a person's body during the performance of professional services).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jones v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
In response, plaintiff contends that defendant does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 97-61.5. [1] "The general rule is that `a person who is seeking to raise the question as to the validity of a discriminatory statute has no standing for that purpose unless he belongs to the class which is prejudiced by the statute.' " In re Appeal of Martin, 286 N.C. 66, 75 , 209 S.E.2d 766, 773 (1974) (citation omitted); see also Roberts v. Durham County Hospital Corp., 56 N.C.App. 533 , 289 S.E.2d 875 (1982), aff'd per curiam, 307 N.C. 465 , 298 S.E.2d 384 (1983); Apartmen…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rose T. ROBERTS and husband, James Roberts
v.
DURHAM COUNTY HOSPITAL CORPORATION and James E. Davis.
273PA82.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Jan 11, 1983.
298 S.E.2d 384
Per Curiam.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (1)

McCain, Essen & Orcutt by Jeff Erick Essen and Grover C. McCain, Jr., Chapel Hill, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis by Walter E. Brock, Jr., and Edward B. Clark, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee James E. Davis.

Haywood, Denny & Miller by George W. Miller, Jr., and Michael W. Patrick, Durham, for defendant-appellee Durham County Hosp. Corp.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MARTIN, J., took no part in the decision of this case.